On 20-Jan, you blanked Propertarianism. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. According to the talk page, you intend upon creating a replacement article. The page should be left as is until you do that. If it will take you awhile to create a complete article, you can always make a short stub first. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 15:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam(T/C) 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hakim Bey.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Left-rothbardianism, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://agorism.info/left-rothbardians. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Left-rothbardianism with a link to where we can find that note.

If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Left-rothbardianism.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Left-rothbardianism/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Left-rothbardianism saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! CIreland (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Left-rothbardianism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ohmpandya(Talk) 02:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, it would really help the rest of us out if you would use the Edit summary box, so we can quick glance and see what it is and why you changed something. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Anarchism.net, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Libertarian perspectives on revolution" is the surviving article[edit]

Please note there was a majority vote to delete "anarcho-capitalist perspectives on revolution" for WP:OR and poor sourcing. And it was deleted. But I got it undeleted because of the changes that are current. So changing the content of the article really is a problem. Also this article has a sock puppet problem I haven't gotten around to deal with. Have you noticed that?? Carol Moore 18:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc{talk}

The same that said Skomoroth. So, ID could be very related but instead it doesn't support a basis in individual liberty, non agression or free asociation is difficult to consider it anarchist. Also it's theoricals doesn´t afirm they are any kind of libertarians (left or right).

Independent of economy it's a values issue (example, anarchism could be communitarist or support direct democracy, but direct democracy and communitarism aren´t synonimous of anarchism). Have a good day. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nihilo 01, You persist in deleting the categories Economic systems, Political economy, Anarchist economic schools and Anarchist theory from the Inclusive Democracy entry without giving any valid reasons for your actions, although the close relation between ID and anarchist theory and economics is well documented both in the main ID entry: "as David Freeman points out, although Fotopoulos' approach "is not openly anarchism, yet anarchism seems the formal category within which he works, given his commitment to direct democracy, municipalism and abolition of state, money and market economy". [2]" and in the Anarchist economics entry: Economic Democracy.

Moreover, the French anarchist Jean-Claude Richard writes in Le Monde Libertaire “Takis Fotopoulos proposes to us the installation of an inclusive democracy whose principles are firmly within the libertarian ideal. This is not surprising since constant references turn up in the book to Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, John Clark and, especially, CorneIius Castoriadis”. Finally, the British libertarian Michael Levin writing in Anarchist Studies and then in Democracy & Nature stresses “In outlining his model of inclusive democracy Fotopoulos combines and builds on the lessons of ancient Greek democracy and the radical critiques of Murray Bookchin and Cornelius Castoriadis”.

As regards the ID's relation to political economy, it is more than obvious that since Economic democracy as an integral part of Inclusive Democracy proposes an alternative economic system, it relates directly to alternative Political economy.

Regarding the weak argument that ID does not explicitly state its anarchism, this implies that every theory which calls itself "anarchist" gets automatically the "credit", although there are valid sources indicating the contrary (see e.g. Parecon in the entry Anarchist economics to which it seems that your deleting activity turns a "blind eye").

For these reasons I am undoing your deletions of the aforementioned categories in the ID entry. -- Panlis (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

But in Parecon you have direct relation, that ID doesn't have. The references support me (you can write about a relation, but is not the same to categorize, because it means Wiki supports that information). -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nihilo, you have reversed the order of importance in sources set by Wikipedia rules themselves: "Primary sources (my note: as such used to justify what you call "direct relation" of anarchism to Parecon) are NOT considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources."

Thus, reliable secondary sources, as those used in the ID entries to closely relate it to anarchism are valid whereas your "direct relation" of Parecon to it (which is based on what the theory itself... thinks of itself) is not. -- Panlis (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop that categorization, a relative relation is not a direct relation or pertenence (you can mention it, but not categorized it), rejected by their own original theorics (direct democracy is not a synonimous of anarchism). Also, why you put your interpretation in a first place, over important schools of anarchism, self-recognized like that.-- Nihilo 01 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

By responding this way to my last post at my talk page and by deleting ID economic democracy posts and categories, Nihilo, you have proved that you are using a very problematic, if not suspicious view of how the primary sources that you (repeatedly mistakenly) consider "valid" define what is "directly relevant" to a theory and what is not. If you can't understand that reliable Secondary sources are the only valid method in interpreting/analyzing the close relationship of ID to anarchism instead of Primary Sources that have to do with the supposed "self-definement" (or what you call "self-recognized shools of anarchism") of what each theory is - a method which is obviously an INVALID way to interpret and analyze such relationships according to the Wiki rules themselves, as I showed in my talk page- then I will be forced to report your activity as vandalism.

Second you insist on deleting the categories of ID despite the extensive secondary sources that are stated in the entries and in my posts at our talk pages. Moreover, you have deleted the interwiki link to the Greek language of the ID entry.

All the above which show that your interventions are totally personal - if not manipulated- and "For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is."

Last, the order of the appearance of the economic systems in the Anarchist economics entry is not usually arbitrary but there is a chronological sequence between them. The chronologically last input which is reliably sourced goes to the top and the last such input is ID's economic democracy. Even if this were a "problem", your deleting of the whole article because of your personal "feeling" of its wrong order in the entry would be unacceptable and authoritarian, especially while you let other entries completely irrelevant (according to secondary sources) to anarchism, like the Parecon entry, stay put. I hope you can understand this. -- Panlis (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, refferences explain that are commons points, but never support that ID is the same than anarchism (don't confuse). I ask, all ID adherents are anarchists?, there are any of them that don't consider ID a direct form of anarchism?, there are many question you might do before add any category. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean, they could be anarchists that sopport ID, but that don't means that all ID supporters are anarchists. I hope you can understand me, excuse my english. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a very silly argument indeed. By the same token, very few anarchists support Parecon (as verified by the strong critiques against it in reliable anarchist journals like Anarchist studies, anarchist books like Getting Free by James Herod etc) and yet you characterise Parecon as anarchist just because its author says so, although he also says he is a socialist, he does not explicitly rule out the state etc! 27 November 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by -- 81.151.103.212 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nihilo 01, as you can't understand there is no way to "ask all ID supporters if they are anarchists" in order to support the link between ID and anarchism. This is a completely irrational if not ludicrous way to figure out the connection of a theory with anarchism. The only rational way to figure out if there is a close relation or identification is by mentioning reliable secondary sources (and not what the theory says about itself) that connect ID with anarchism and there are plenty of them as I pointed out. At the same time, your blatant partiality towards ID's connection with anarchism while there are no reliable secondary sources to stress at all even the slightest connection of other economic systems as Parecon with anarchism is at least suspicious. This is a final warning for Vandalism if you continue to dereference ID from Anarchism and delete relevant entries. -- Panlis (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Inclusive Democracy, you will be blocked from editing. This is a template warning that connects with the previously posted warnings about vandalism and content removal in Nihilo 01' page concerning the Inclusive Democracy entry

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Anarchist economics, you will be blocked from editing. This is a template warning that connects with the previously posted warnings about vandalism and content removal in Nihilo 01' page concerning the Anarchist economics entry -- Panlis (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP, that was not my question. I asked, not if all anarchists accept ID, but if all ID supporters consider themselves anarchists? (consider that Fotopoulus, the father of ID, reject be an anarchist). I continue remember that direct democracy it's not a synonimous of anarchy. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

But why you put it first, all the other schools, not only are explicit anarchist, but there are more kwnowed and traditionals. ¿? Why yoy don't put "anarchist schools" in cronological order, or in political economy order, or in popularity order (in any way ID couldn't be first in the list). -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nihilo, your arguments continue to be very fable. First, who says that if a supporter of a theory calls himself an anarchist, that his theory really is. You have to understand that this is why these kinds of statements ("my theory is anarchist") come from Primary Sources which, according to Wikipedia rules, justifiably are not correct for interpreting/analyzing if a theory is anarchist or not or anything else. Meaning that even if a supporter or a theorist of a theory considers explicitly himself an anarchist, this doesn't mean that he really is (in rational terms) but there should be reliable Secondary Sources to stress this connection. Of course direct democracy is very related to anarchism and nothing truly is "synonymous" with anarchism (where have you seen any secondary sources stating that something is identified with or is synonymous with anarchism?? Even mutualism isn' t identified with anarchism per se in Anarchist economics!).

Second, if you think and you have valid Wikipedia data that state that the articles have to be ordered by a specific order other than chronological (By the way, who says they are NOT listed by chronological order, where the last entry -ID- goes on top, as I said?) or in another way, you have to show what you think of and not make "guesses" about the correct order and, of course, you can't DELETE valid entries instead, something that is blatant vandalism. I hope you can understand these elementary and rational criteria. -- Panlis (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nihilo 01, you return after 3 months and you vandalise again the entry deleting categories without any strong proof. Just saying "redundance and original source". As we' ve said there are original sources which strongly link Anarchism with ID. -- TouristPhilosopher (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nihilo, you still insist on deleting and distorting the completely justified by external references and data, strong relation of anarchism with the Inclusive Democracy project and this way you continue to screw much of the synthetic essence of the project, as has been developed by Takis Fotopoulos himself and other theorists, and has been backed up in these entries and in this dialogue by sources written by a few prominent thinkers, Libertarians, Anarchists and Leftists. Moreover, there are plenty of common independent sources stating the relevance including the Anarchopedia entry http://deu.anarchopedia.org/Umfassende_Demokratie and the Anarchismus site http://www.anarchismus.de/medien/medientipps.htm, among others. You have repeatedly deleted and distorted the links, references and content of the ID-related entries without giving us not even one third party source to back your actions and your justification has been irrational and without evidence. Furthermore, you have not explained at all, not showing any evidence to justify it [[[according to the wikipedia rules]]], why you altered the order of the entries in Anarchist Economics, promoting Parecon and what you personally think is "anarchist" and finally you "demand" that these vandalist and completely irrational interventions of yours should be considered rightful. This is a final warning for vandalist action for the entry Inclusive Democracy. -- Panlis (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to [[:Inclusive Democracy]]. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. This is a template warning that connects with the previously posted warnings about vandalism and content removal in Nihilo 01' page concerning the Inclusive Democracy entry. -- Panlis (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

MySpace isn´t a refference, stop putting that template. You know you are wrong. And please learn about how is a taxonomical order: A contents B, not A relates to B. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nihilo 01, who said that there is a MySpace reference? Have your senses been under attack or something? There is not any MySpace reference in the Wiki entries, nor have I posted any MySpace references. And before you "teach" me what to do you' d better learn the basics of dialogue (that you so much... care about) and give rational and evidenced, rightfully sourced justification for any change you make. About who is wrong and who is not wrong this is not something arbitrary as your vandalisms are, but the enty additions are based on third party sources which are the only reliable sources, according to Wikipedia rules. And what about your sense of "dialogue" in which you write once in a while 1 or 2 incomprehensible lines of supposed (not justified) arguments, compared to my analysis of all my actions.

Therefore, you go on distorting stuff and making important mistakes without even knowing what your impact of your reckless activity is. "To be taxonomical" doesn' t mean anything specific in Wikipedia, if you don't have to show me solid wiki sources/rules saying that the taxonomy has to be as you say, else your actions are arbitrary. The WP:POINT that you linked probably has to do with your anti-social activity where you make 'disruption to illustrate a point'. So, what you did is you deleted all categories in ID that you "divinely" think they do not fit with the ID project entry and then you justify this with fake and irrelevant arguments, like the bad taxonomy of a talk page (!!) and a non-existent "MySpace reference" in an entry!

So Nihilo 01, if you don't have a clue about what you are doing and just want to make fuss, you' d rather stop fiddling and distorting entries, dialogues and sources(something which is a characteristic of authoritarianism and not of...anarchism of course) based on fake and malicious arguments. -- Panlis (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You have remember that about greek events, that Wikipedia isn't an original source. In the other topics, there is a discussion you can use (anarchist concepts could be a lot, I think the template presents only the most representives). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

then you could've just removed the bit about the greek riots - if you hadn't noticed, there were other edits as well that you reverted. thanks 74.61.49.154 (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In categories you should try to be taxonomical, some of your edits were redundances and anothers were so interpretatives. With the M-G Gang you was right I didn't see Abbie's name. And I'm anarcho-without adjectives, long time ago I don't worry about what kind of anarchist I am (I also like some things of green anarchism :D). Happy holydays! --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources says "libertarianism" is a synonym for anarchism. If "libertarianism" is anarchism, then "libertarian socialism" is socialist anarchism and "libertarian individualism" would be individualist anarchism. See? Unfortunately there's very few sources that use the term "libertarian individualism" to refer to individualist anarchism, which is why that isn't pointed out. Jadabocho (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He's linked to from the article on it, so I naturally assumed. Zazaban (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Individualist anarchism and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

I agree with some of his stuff and I disagree with some. I absolutely do not support his hatred of anarcho-capitalism, which is quite clearly POV. I do like the additions of the european individualist anarchists, which I have found highly interesting and informative. The tone needs to be worked on in some places though. Zazaban (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal with the Inclusive Democracy supporters? They're so aggressive and militant; please see my Talk page for some samples of their behaviour. What should be done about it? SentientContrarian (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)